Leaky Wiki
'Welcome to Leaky Wiki!' There is a greater risk of having an uninformed public about our government and national security than the risk of having security sensitive information leaked to the public. "In war, as in life, there are plenty of opportunities to see the full spectrum of good and evil that people are capable of. As journalists, it is our job to report both -- though neither may be fully representative of those people on whom we're reporting. For example, acts of selfless heroism are likely to be as unique to a group as the darker deeds. But our coverage of these unique events, combined with the larger perspective - will allow the truth of that situation, in all of its coplexities, to begin to emerge." -Kevin Sites, NBC Reporter Timeline of Wikileaks What is WikiLeaks? WikiLeaks is an international online non-profit organization created in 2006 that publishes classified media from various annoymous sources. Since it's creation it has been the source of controversy, but most public attention in 2010 with the leaking of over 250,000 diplomatic cables and the following controversies. Wikileak Infographic What is the Risk? Risk is inherently associated with Wikileaks' creation and document releases. Because of the potent nature of the released documents, many of those involved feel great risk. Three areas that face this risk include having an uninformed public, privacy and security, and consciousness and action in politics and the media. The risk of an uninformed public is great because of the need of having transparency. Having a greater understanding of the workings of the government prevents politicians and leaders from acting in their own self-interest and without the consent of the nation. Having a government that acts without approval by who it is serving threatens the direction of action of the nation. A leadership that acts without consent of its public is no longer serving its public. This risk is greater than that of the ability of leadership to act in secrecy. For example, Opinio Juris attests to the fact that increased transparency in the country increases the ability for the leadership to act in the interest of its people, and is a necessity. Privacy and security have been threatened by the creation of Wikileaks because of its ability to break down boundaries that were previously perceived as secure. Documents and communications are now at risk of circulating outside of these boundaries, and therefore create threats to information security. For example, Sarah Palin's personal email communications were leaked by the Wikileaks group in 2008 and revealed that she had been using personal email to avoid American public record laws of her communications. This shows ethical dilemmas with hacking when privacy boundaries are breached. Consciousness and action both in politics and in the media is altered by the creation of Wikileaks. With the awareness of the organization, many politicians change their actions for fear of the public gaining knowledge about illicit activities. The media also fears the exposure of intended secrets. Accountability is therefore increased by the creation of Wikileaks. People Julian Assange Daniel Domscheit-Berg Bradley Manning Anonymous Events Guantanamo Handbook Sarah Palin email hack Afghan War Diary Iraq War Logs Cablegate Arab Spring Timeline of Wikileaks The Media as a Monolith Hacktivism especially Wikileaks is magnifies the biased media coverage of the war. Wikileaks provides an unflinching view of the War on Terror as “Collateral Damage” shows the brutal killing of civilians. During the initial invasion of Iraq, the government used public relation firms to sell the war to the public through the manipulation of fear in the aftermath of 9/11. The imagined threats of “weapons of mass destruction” were paramount risks that needed to be mitigated through an invasion. The imagined risks were transformed into the real. War as a Product to Sell "Techniques being used to sell a war in Iraq are familiar PR strategies. The message is developed to resonate with the targeted audiences through the use of focus groups and other types of market research and media monitoring. The delivery of the message is tightly controlled. Relevant information flows to the media and the public through a limited number of well-trained messengers, including seemingly independent third parties.” (Herman) Embedded Reporters Technological developments have also transformed war reporting making it easier to collect news and harder to stop its distribution. But the increase in size and influence of the news business means that politicians are more concerned to win favorable coverage and simultaneously more anxious to prevent critical coverage. Embedded reporters from every new source signed a contract with the US government which places “limits” to their reporting in the name of security. Reporters became part of the armies they were supposed to report on. “From the beginning, it was clear that the embedded reporters were “in bed” with military escorts and protectors and as the US and Britain stormed into Iraq the reporters presented exultant and triumphant accounts that trumped any paid propagandist. The embedded US network television reporters were gung-ho cheerleaders and spinners for the US and UK military and lost all veneer of objectivity” (Kellner). Media Spectacles News coverage also focuses on media spectacles and minimizes the death of civilians and the complete inequality of American drones bombing a country full of people with obsolete machines and little access to health care. One of the television segments on the war in Iraq were through the computer screens that controlled drones, aerial shots from helicopters that witnessed the explosion of shrapnel bombs that transformed men, women, and children into dust mushrooms. The reports were styled more in the manner of video games, focused on abstractions, glossing over the personal stories of injured Iraqi civilians. Additionally PR firms chose certain media spectacles to be played and shown on all media outlets. One such example was the fall of Saddam Hussein’s statue. “The destruction of a statue of Saddam Hussein on live global television provided precisely the images desired by the Pentagon and Bush administration. Closer analysis of this spectacle revealed, however, that rather than displaying a mass uprising of Iraqis against the Ba’ath regime, there were relatively few people assaulting the Hussein statue, including members of the US supported Iraqi National Congress, one of whose members shown in the crowd attempted to pass himself off as the “mayor” of Baghdad.... Moreover, the few Iraqis attacking the statue were unable to destroy it, until some US soldiers on the scene use their tank and cable to pull it down. In a semiotic slip, one soldier briefly put a US flag on top of Hussein’s head, providing an iconic image for Arab networks and others of a US occupation and take-over of Iraq” (Kellner) References http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/23/usa.iraq Miller, David. Tell Me Lies: How the Media Mis-reported and Distorted the Attack on Iraq. London: Pluto, 2004. Print. "Opinio Juris Blog Archive Why the Benefits of WikiLeaks Far Outweigh Its Dangers." Opinio Juris Â» Blog Archive Â» Why the Benefits of WikiLeaks Far Outweigh Its Dangers. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. . "Sarah Palin Email Hack." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Apr. 2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. . "Wikileaks: A Timeline of the Site's Top Scoops." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. . "WikiLeaks." Top 3 Accredited Online Schools : Find The Best Online School Search Online Degrees, Colleges and Universities Free Online Schools Online K-12 Schooling Online School Reports, Reviews, & Rankings. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3 Category:Bradley Manning Category:Julian Assange Category:What is the risk? Category:Wikileak effects Category:Browse